The state of Byzantium in 1180, upon Manuel I's death...

The year is 1180, Manuel I has passed away, depressed by his (relatively inconsequential) defeat at Myriocephalon in 1176 as well as his isolation from the West following the Peace of Venice concluded in 1177. Despite these setbacks, would the Empire have been able to still resume the offensive against the Turks in Anatolia if Manuel had an adult heir (say OTL's Bela III of Hungary, who came close to inheriting the Empire if not for the birth of Alexios II in 1169)?

Even with the defeat in 1176, it appears as though Manuel's achievement in Anatolia, the securing of the coastal regions via a policy of fortification, remains intact in 1180 at his death (thus bequeathing strength to OTL's Empire of Nicaea). Dorylaeum, Manuel's greatest Anatolian conquest, appears to still have been in Roman hands in 1180 due to Manuel's refusal to honor all of the terms of the Byzantine-Seljuq treaty that followed the debacle of 1176. Furthermore, the evidence from the primary sources seems to indicate that the Army remained almost entirely intact by 1180...

With a strong heir such as Bela III, could the Romans resume the offensive against the Turks after a break, say of 10 years?...just in time to take advantage of Frederick Barbarossa's march through Anatolia and conquer Konya.


Thus my questions:

Was Dorylaeum (an important outpost on the Anatolian plateau) still in Roman hands at Manuel's death in 1180?


Could a stronger heir such as Bela III, focused on the East due to his strong dynastic relations with Hungary, have rectified Manuel's policies and resumed the offensive against the Seljuqs?


Could the Romans in such a scenario have taken advantage of the 3rd Crusades' wildly successful march through Anatolia to reconquer Konya from the seljuqs, avenging Manuel's defeat?



The more I read the more I believe that Manuel's greatest defeat was not Myriocephalon, which did not compromise the Empire's Anatolian territories, but was instead his failure to produce a strong heir...a failure that is on par with that of Basil II in 1025.
 
The Romans/Byzantines would never have accepted a Catholic as their Emperor, especially not at a time of strength.
 
Last edited:
The year is 1180, Manuel I has passed away, depressed by his (relatively inconsequential) defeat at Myriocephalon in 1176 as well as his isolation from the West following the Peace of Venice concluded in 1177. Despite these setbacks, would the Empire have been able to still resume the offensive against the Turks in Anatolia if Manuel had an adult heir (say OTL's Bela III of Hungary, who came close to inheriting the Empire if not for the birth of Alexios II in 1169)?

Hello Sassanid Saxon! Good to see you. :)

You might remember me, I am RoyalHill from the other history forum. How are things? Great to see a post on this topic, Manuel I Komnenos and that whole period is my favourite topic.

To answer the first part, yes I believe it is entirely possible that the Byzantines could have continued to play a strong hand in Anatolia with the right ruler. If I remember rightly, the gradual Seljuk gains that followed Manuel's death were directly made to take advantage of the instability in Constantinople, which began in September 1180 and continued for the next 25 years. But assuming there is a smooth transition of power, it is likely the territorial losses would never happen.

With a strong heir such as Bela III, could the Romans resume the offensive against the Turks after a break, say of 10 years?...just in time to take advantage of Frederick Barbarossa's march through Anatolia and conquer Konya.

Indeed, if we imagine a new emperor who is reasonably competent, then it is entirely feasible that Byzantium retakes Konya in 1190 during Barbarossa's crusade. Such a victory would likely be the most significant event since the capture of Nicaea nearly a century earlier.

The capture of the Seljuk capital really significantly changes the balance of power in Anatolia. If we look at a map of the frontline at the time we can see that Konya basically dominates the central plateau, and whoever controls it secures the entire southern and western portions of Anatolia. This would be a massive gain to the Byzantine Empire.

Byzant1ujabb.jpg



Was Dorylaeum (an important outpost on the Anatolian plateau) still in Roman hands at Manuel's death in 1180?

Yes

Could a stronger heir such as Bela III, focused on the East due to his strong dynastic relations with Hungary, have rectified Manuel's policies and resumed the offensive against the Seljuqs?

Yes! We can also imagine various scenarios in which this takes place, including that a family other than the Angeloi follows the Komnenoi, or alternatively that Andronikos I doesn't go mad and initiate a bloodbath, or even that Manuel never takes the throne in the first place (this is my favourite).

Manuel had two older brothers, who should have come to the throne instead of him, but both of whom died tragically around the time John II died. If we assume that one of them takes over instead of Manuel, then the years from 1143 to 1180 might have been more profitably spent in Anatolia to regain more territory. In addition, the royal family might have continued in a more favourable direction.

Could the Romans in such a scenario have taken advantage of the 3rd Crusades' wildly successful march through Anatolia to reconquer Konya from the seljuqs, avenging Manuel's defeat?

Yes!

The more I read the more I believe that Manuel's greatest defeat was not Myriocephalon, which did not compromise the Empire's Anatolian territories, but was instead his failure to produce a strong heir...a failure that is on par with that of Basil II in 1025.

Agreed!

Considering the nature of the Komnenian system, it was prettymuch asking for trouble to die at the time and in the manner that he did.
 
Last edited:
Hello Sassanid Saxon! Good to see you. :)

You might remember me, I am RoyalHill from the other history forum. How are things? Great to see a post on this topic, Manuel I Komnenos and that whole period is my favourite topic.

To answer the first part, yes I believe it is entirely possible that the Byzantines could have continued to play a strong hand in Anatolia with the right ruler. If I remember rightly, the gradual Seljuk gains that followed Manuel's death were directly made to take advantage of the instability in Constantinople, which began in September 1180 and continued for the next 25 years. But assuming there is a smooth transition of power, it is likely the territorial losses would never happen.



Indeed, if we imagine a new emperor who is reasonably competent, then it is entirely feasible that Byzantium retakes Konya in 1190 during Barbarossa's crusade. Such a victory would likely be the most significant event since the capture of Nicaea nearly a century earlier.

The capture of the Seljuk capital really significantly changes the balance of power in Anatolia. If we look at a map of the frontline at the time we can see that Konya basically dominates the central plateau, and whoever controls it secures the entire southern and western portions of Anatolia. This would be a massive gain to the Byzantine Empire.

Byzant1ujabb.jpg





Yes



Yes! We can also imagine various scenarios in which this takes place, including that a family other than the Angeloi follows the Komnenoi, or alternatively that Andronikos I doesn't go mad and initiate a bloodbath, or even that Manuel never takes the throne in the first place (this is my favourite).

Manuel had two older brothers, who should have come to the throne instead of him, but both of whom died tragically around the time John II died. If we assume that one of them takes over instead of Manuel, then the years from 1143 to 1180 might have been more profitably spent in Anatolia to regain more territory. In addition, the royal family might have continued in a more favourable direction.



Yes!



Agreed!

Considering the nature of the Komnenian system, it was prettymuch asking for trouble to die at the time and in the manner that he did.
Several issues with Manuel. His policies were a failure. He was actually one of the worst emperors. It was he who focused way too much on every front thereby overextending byzantine borders and causing outright hostility/mistust among all his neighbors. Something that was evident when his successors took over. He also continued the process of feudalization in the byzantine state and by Andronikos time the changes necessary for the empire to regain some sense of stability would have never happened because the nobles would react angrily to any curbing of their rights. The komnenoi family system itself was ripe with plots and conspiracies too and the giving out of titles was also an issue. His failure in Italy turned the west against him. Not to mention all his campaigning bankrupted the already war weary byzantine state and the tax burdens on the peasants became even worse+ with more peasants become soldiers less of a tax base to draw from and greater strain on the economy. For all these reasons even if Manuel had a viable successor, the west would still make overtures upon Byzantium as would the turks and by Manuel's last days Byzantium was essentially a paper tiger and the whole system he and his predecessors set up was destined to unravel.

I guess though that Bela ALexius provided he becomes King of Hungary as well would in the short term be good for Byzantium, but terrible long term. bela was a typical feudal king and so you would see even greater fedualization happening beaking down the state's foundations and this coupled with more autonomous provinces(after all Bela was catholic and the orthdox nobles of Byzantium would demand autonomy at the very least) Though I do agree temporarily Byzantium would beat back its neighbors since the entire Balkans+Hungary+Byzantium would be formidable to say the least.

Now Andonikos did folow the correct policies but he sadly went insane due to stress and fighting invasions lead by the Sicilians and by his point it was too late to bring power back into the hands of the emperor.

As for the third crusade no way. Fredrick Barbarossa and Manuel were rivals. Frederick in fact thought of Manuel simply as a greek king who had to submit to him. Both Manuel and Fredrick viewed themselves as leading a universal roman empire. Consequently their is no way you could see any real cooperation between the Germans and the Greeks because of this rivalry/dispute. In fact I expect the Germans to act as OTL in Byzantine lands and the Byzantines to hinder their progress as much as possible.
For all these reasons even if Manuel gets an adequate successor Byzantium would collars for thats how the Komnenoi system was set up.
Bela Alexius would tempoaily halt the collapse but the moment a weak emperor takes the throne or an emperor who tries to forcibly centralize the state, the system will fall apart.
 
Several issues with Manuel. His policies were a failure. He was actually one of the worst emperors. It was he who focused way too much on every front thereby overextending byzantine borders and causing outright hostility/mistust among all his neighbors. Something that was evident when his successors took over. He also continued the process of feudalization in the byzantine state and by Andronikos time the changes necessary for the empire to regain some sense of stability would have never happened because the nobles would react angrily to any curbing of their rights. The komnenoi family system itself was ripe with plots and conspiracies too and the giving out of titles was also an issue. His failure in Italy turned the west against him. Not to mention all his campaigning bankrupted the already war weary byzantine state and the tax burdens on the peasants became even worse+ with more peasants become soldiers less of a tax base to draw from and greater strain on the economy. For all these reasons even if Manuel had a viable successor, the west would still make overtures upon Byzantium as would the turks and by Manuel's last days Byzantium was essentially a paper tiger and the whole system he and his predecessors set up was destined to unravel.

I guess though that Bela ALexius provided he becomes King of Hungary as well would in the short term be good for Byzantium, but terrible long term. bela was a typical feudal king and so you would see even greater fedualization happening beaking down the state's foundations and this coupled with more autonomous provinces(after all Bela was catholic and the orthdox nobles of Byzantium would demand autonomy at the very least) Though I do agree temporarily Byzantium would beat back its neighbors since the entire Balkans+Hungary+Byzantium would be formidable to say the least.

Now Andonikos did folow the correct policies but he sadly went insane due to stress and fighting invasions lead by the Sicilians and by his point it was too late to bring power back into the hands of the emperor.

As for the third crusade no way. Fredrick Barbarossa and Manuel were rivals. Frederick in fact thought of Manuel simply as a greek king who had to submit to him. Both Manuel and Fredrick viewed themselves as leading a universal roman empire. Consequently their is no way you could see any real cooperation between the Germans and the Greeks because of this rivalry/dispute. In fact I expect the Germans to act as OTL in Byzantine lands and the Byzantines to hinder their progress as much as possible.
For all these reasons even if Manuel gets an adequate successor Byzantium would collars for thats how the Komnenoi system was set up.
Bela Alexius would temporarily halt the collapse but the moment a weak emperor takes the throne or an emperor who tries to forcibly centralize the state, the system will fall apart.

This does raise good points.

Specifically on the Crusader-Byzantine relations, I have long thought the Byzantines disastrously mishandled the Third Crusade and even the Second Crusade was a massive lost opportunity. I feel that Byzantine policy was wrong.

The first thing they should do is become enthusiastic supporters of the Crusade and join in the attack on the Turks. Instead, on the Second Crusade, Manuel made a truce with them. This is cowardice and betrayal.

I'd like to see a new Byzantine Emperor more like John II Komnenos. I am sure he would have made the Crusade more to his advantage. He fought against the Turks with bravery and determination.

As for the structure of the system, I do think there is some truth that it had inner weaknesses and that it was probably going to come unstuck at some point. But my hopes are with a reforming emperor who has the bravery to change the system, reform and make it better. Manuel did not, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was impossible.

As you've described, things did fall apart for a good reason. I'm not sure that it was too late by Andronikos' time, I just think he didn't go about it the best way. It would never have been easy, but I still think steps could have been done to improve the situation. Think emperor Nikephoros I for inspiration. He reformed the tax collection, carried out the census, clamped down on corruption and reformed the army and the provinces. That's the sort of leadership we need to see. He even encouraged the economy by offering loans for ship building. A visionary leader, who put Byzantium on the right track. That's what I'd like to see.
 
I think the whole problem with Manuel's relationship with the Crusaders is that he is way too obsessed with his influence over the crusader states when he should have spent his energy on eliminating the Turks on his doorstep.Basically,he spent a fortune trying to influence the crusader states that gave no benefit to the ERE.Worse than that,this obsession ended up causing a deterioration in relations with the west that ended up almost causing a war between the crusaders and the ERE during the Second Crusade.
 
I think the whole problem with Manuel's relationship with the Crusaders is that he is way too obsessed with his influence over the crusader states when he should have spent his energy on eliminating the Turks on his doorstep.Basically,he spent a fortune trying to influence the crusader states that gave no benefit to the ERE.Worse than that,this obsession ended up causing a deterioration in relations with the west that ended up almost causing a war between the crusaders and the ERE during the Second Crusade.

Agreed.

While John II was a good emperor, Manuel was merely a reasonably competent manager. He didn't lose any territory, but he did not add anything to the Byzantine Empire and in fact his actions left it weaker than he found it. Do you play Medieval II: Total War?
 
Last edited:
Agreed.

While John II was a good emperor, Manuel was merely a reasonably competent manager. He didn't lose any territory, but he did not add anything to the Byzantine Empire and in fact his actions left it weaker than he found it.
I wouldn't even call him a competent manager to be honest.Corruption and the patronage BS rose to an all time high during his reign,which forced Andronikos later on to try and clean the house.He funded most of his BS by raising taxes continuously. And no,he did lose some territory,he more or less lost Cilicia even before the end of his reign.I simply never quite understood the Komnenian Emperors' obsession with the crusader states,Manuel in particular.All three wanted Antioch for some reason,but only marginal effort was spent to actually try and annex the place.Manuel in particular was content with simply forcing the place into vassalage when he had the chance to conquer the principality and annex it when it was shown that the principality's rulers will try and break away whenever the empire turns it's attention elsewhere.With the amount of money and resources John and Manuel(Manuel in particular) spends on bribing the crusader states,they could have realistically conquered Antioch easily.
 
I wouldn't even call him a competent manager to be honest.Corruption and the patronage BS rose to an all time high during his reign,which forced Andronikos later on to try and clean the house.He funded most of his BS by raising taxes continuously. And no,he did lose some territory,he more or less lost Cilicia even before the end of his reign.I simply never quite understood the Komnenian Emperors' obsession with the crusader states,Manuel in particular.All three wanted Antioch for some reason,but only marginal effort was spent to actually try and annex the place.Manuel in particular was content with simply forcing the place into vassalage when he had the chance to conquer the principality and annex it when it was shown that the principality's rulers will try and break away whenever the empire turns it's attention elsewhere.With the amount of money and resources John and Manuel(Manuel in particular) spends on bribing the crusader states,they could have realistically conquered Antioch easily.

Yes to all the above, but that's applying a modern mindset based on hindsight.

Remember that in the Middle Ages, the concept of authority and the concepts of vassalship were key. Manuel wanted to be the overlord of the Crusader states, and to affirm his ideological position as leader of the Christian world by doing so. He didn't simply want to destroy the Crusaders, he wanted them to accept that he was their overlord and to use them as a source of support in his struggle against the Turks, as well as a means of extending his influence.

In the end, this policy was only partly successful, but he did get a glowing reputation in some of the key western accounts, notably William of Tyre. He is also likened to a steady helmsman, who kept the ship safe and on a steady course, by the Byzantine historian Choniates, who adds that after Manuel's death, it seemed that all that was right went wrong. Despite criticising some aspects of Manuel's reign, Choniates still mourns his passing and considers him a giant compared to those who came after him.
 
Yes to all the above, but that's applying a modern mindset based on hindsight.

Remember that in the Middle Ages, the concept of authority and the concepts of vassalship were key. Manuel wanted to be the overlord of the Crusader states, and to affirm his ideological position as leader of the Christian world by doing so. He didn't simply want to destroy the Crusaders, he wanted them to accept that he was their overlord and to use them as a source of support in his struggle against the Turks, as well as a means of extending his influence.

In the end, this policy was only partly successful, but he did get a glowing reputation in some of the key western accounts, notably William of Tyre. He is also likened to a steady helmsman, who kept the ship safe and on a steady course, by the Byzantine historian Choniates, who adds that after Manuel's death, it seemed that all that was right went wrong. Despite criticising some aspects of Manuel's reign, Choniates still mourns his passing and considers him a giant compared to those who came after him.
Your analysis of Manuel's views are absolutely correct.Frankly though,I see his point of view as full of contradictions.The Crusader states were a liability in any way possible.They can barely defend themselves.The best they can do would be do distract other Muslim powers from attacking the ERE.Another thing is that repeatedly,the ERE has shown that it was incapable of handling vassal states.What tends to happen when the ERE gets a vassal state is that when it weakens or gets distracted in another area, that vassal state will rebel,breakaway,or even try to conquer parts of the Empire.Manuel knows this enough.His invasion of southern Italy largely failed because he had to divert most of his troops into quelling the Serbian revolt,sending mostly unreliable mercenaries to proceed with the invasion.Another thing is that with the amount of resources he pumps in to try and buff up the crusader states,he could have well used it to vanquish both the Turks and Antioch rather easily.Ultimately,the man's a bloody megalomaniac who spends his money on unrealistic adventures rather than using it to build up his state or achieve more realistic military goals.
 
Last edited:
Your analysis of Manuel's views are absolutely correct.Frankly though,I see his point of view as full of contradictions.The Crusader states were a liability in any way possible.They can barely defend themselves.The best they can do would be do distract other Muslim powers from attacking the ERE.Another thing is that repeatedly,the ERE has shown that it was incapable of handling vassal states.What tends to happen when the ERE gets a vassal state is that when it weakens or gets distracted in another area, that vassal state will rebel,breakaway,or even try to conquer parts of the Empire.Manuel knows this enough.His invasion of southern Italy largely failed because he had to divert most of his troops into quelling the Serbian revolt,sending mostly unreliable mercenaries to proceed with the invasion.Another thing is that with the amount of resources he pumps in to try and buff up the crusader states,he could have well used it to vanquish both the Turks and Antioch rather easily.And finally,the man's a bloody megalomaniac who spends his money on unrealistic adventures rather than using it to build up his state or achieve more realistic military goals.

Yes, all of this is pretty true.

Particularly the last sentence. That's pretty much exactly what Choniates and other more modern historians say too. That he expended too much wealth on fruitless campaigns and on luxury and extravagance at court. He was even paying for the walls of Milan to be rebuilt, for crying out loud. That is a shameful waste of taxpayer money and brought absolutely no benefit to the citizens of Constantinople, Nicaea, Trebizond, Thessalonia, Athens and other Byzantine cities that had paid for it.

His expeditions against Egypt were also a poor use of resources. It seems madness to be fighting Egyptians when the Turks are at Dorylaeum. The problem goes back even to the time of John II. Despite widely being considered a better emperor than Manuel (and overall, I believe he was), even John II wasted significant time and resources campaigning in Syria, which must have cost a lot of money and which didn't bring any benefit.

Most frustratingly of all, John II actually captured Gangra on the Anatolian plateau, yet he garrisoned it with a mere 2000 men and it was soon lost again. He was prepared to deploy vastly more manpower and resources to the campaigns in Syria than he did in Anatolia, and that is completely the wrong way round. Had he deployed that level of power in central Anatolia, he could have done more.

It seems to be the whole ideology of the period was clouded by delusion and mistaken calculations. Have you read Jonathan Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades? I found that book fascinating for the way it explains how they thought and what they were trying to achieve. But you are right - they were bonkers!
 
Yes, all of this is pretty true.

Particularly the last sentence. That's pretty much exactly what Choniates and other more modern historians say too. That he expended too much wealth on fruitless campaigns and on luxury and extravagance at court. He was even paying for the walls of Milan to be rebuilt, for crying out loud. That is a shameful waste of taxpayer money and brought absolutely no benefit to the citizens of Constantinople, Nicaea, Trebizond, Thessalonia, Athens and other Byzantine cities that had paid for it.

His expeditions against Egypt were also a poor use of resources. It seems madness to be fighting Egyptians when the Turks are at Dorylaeum. The problem goes back even to the time of John II. Despite widely being considered a better emperor than Manuel (and overall, I believe he was), even John II wasted significant time and resources campaigning in Syria, which must have cost a lot of money and which didn't bring any benefit.

Most frustratingly of all, John II actually captured Gangra on the Anatolian plateau, yet he garrisoned it with a mere 2000 men and it was soon lost again. He was prepared to deploy vastly more manpower and resources to the campaigns in Syria than he did in Anatolia, and that is completely the wrong way round. Had he deployed that level of power in central Anatolia, he could have done more.

It seems to be the whole ideology of the period was clouded by delusion and mistaken calculations. Have you read Jonathan Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades? I found that book fascinating for the way it explains how they thought and what they were trying to achieve. But you are right - they were bonkers!
I think I might have read it.I've definitely read The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos,1143-1180 by Paul Magdalino.The author basically said that while the ERE could have easily reconquered the entirety of Anatolia,all three Emperors were obsessed with trying to conquer Syria because it was richer than Anatolia.All the time though,all of their attempts were either poorly supported or ridiculous diplomatic ventures.They basically wasted money and time in Syria(especially Manuel) while the Turks regained strength.I find John's attempt to conquer Homs,Aleppo etc and trade them with Antioch particularly delusional.If he has the time and resources to conquer these places,a direct attempt to conquer Antioch might have been more fruitful.The whole time,the crusader states never seemed to have planned to honour any of their promises to the ERE while at the same time cheat or extort a ridiculous amount of money from the ERE.It always amazes me how the ERE continues to fall for empty crusader promises.

 
Last edited:
Though, when you look at it from a contemporary standpoint, I suppose it would make sense why John II and Manuel I went ahead with focusing on the Levant rather than expelling the Turk from Anatolia, even if we were to replace the latter with someone like Alexios (as Alexios II) or Andronikos (Andronikos I, not to be confused with the OTL one) or even have a usurper take over, I personally see it would run into the same problem, because I doubt the Byzantines really cared about reconquering the rest of Anatolia, at least not immediately so.

That said, I do believe that Alexios or Andronikos would not waste the Byzantine treasury as badly as Manuel did, for all the good Manuel did in making sure the empire didn't blow up in his face. He sure made sure it would indeed do so 20 years later...
 
Though, when you look at it from a contemporary standpoint, I suppose it would make sense why John II and Manuel I went ahead with focusing on the Levant rather than expelling the Turk from Anatolia, even if we were to replace the latter with someone like Alexios (as Alexios II) or Andronikos (Andronikos I, not to be confused with the OTL one) or even have a usurper take over, I personally see it would run into the same problem, because I doubt the Byzantines really cared about reconquering the rest of Anatolia, at least not immediately so.

That said, I do believe that Alexios or Andronikos would not waste the Byzantine treasury as badly as Manuel did, for all the good Manuel did in making sure the empire didn't blow up in his face. He sure made sure it would indeed do so 20 years later...

Yep, I mean fundamentally the Byzantine Empire was an Anatolian power throughout most of its history. From about 700AD onwards, Anatolia was the core. Anatolia was a vast territory and it had the potential to provide the manpower and the resources for an Empire. By allowing another state to exist on the Anatolian plateau, the Komnenoi emperors really screwed up.

A perceptive ruler would realise that Byzantium could not fight a war on two fronts, and would seek to push the frontiers back to their natural boundaries, on the Taurus and anti-Taurus mountains in eastern Anatolia, where they had been for over 400 years c.650 to c.1050.
 
Yeah, but I don't it could be helped. Around the time of the Komnenids there was the threat of the Normans in Sicily, who since Alexios I had been warring with the Byzantines (I however do not know what the Normans were expecting to achieve long term fighting against Byzantium however).

Long story short, while Byzantium could not fight a war on two fronts, it often was forced into fighting on two fronts anyway.
 
Yeah, but I don't it could be helped. Around the time of the Komnenids there was the threat of the Normans in Sicily, who since Alexios I had been warring with the Byzantines (I however do not know what the Normans were expecting to achieve long term fighting against Byzantium however)..

Seizing control of the empire?
 
Long story short, while Byzantium could not fight a war on two fronts, it often was forced into fighting on two fronts anyway.

Well the advantage of Anatolia as a heartland territory is that technically, there is only one front - the east. The Aegean sea protects Anatolia to the west.

Of course, Constantinople could be attacked and then forces would need to move west, but the core heartlands of Anatolia could never be threatened from that direction.
 

Deleted member 67076

Whenever we have a discussion on Manuel, we always seem to focus on having a better successor to John II, but (I'm probably sounding like a broken record by now) why not just have John live a good ~10 years longer and have him continue the assault against the Seljuqs?

This would possibly lead to the Byzantines capturing Konya (thereby securing control towards the Tarsus and probably imploding the Seljuq state), inadvertently aiding the Abbasids who would then in turn open up 2 fronts for the Seljuqs and their allies to deal with, and at the same time giving John more time to be grooming Manuel to be more fiscally responsible, far sighted and all around a better ruler.
 
Well, that is a sizeable idea, but with a PoD not even that early, you wouldn't even have to go through that trouble, you have to remember that both Alexios and Andronikos Komnenos died the year before John II did.

It does give me an idea to do something though.
 
Top